“I think it’s a cost-benefit analysis. I think despite the large amount of trade we do with Iran, which is close to $12 billion… there will be consequences, there will be a backlash and there will be problems with people protesting and rioting and very unhappy that there is an outside force attacking a Muslim country; that is going to happen no matter what. If you are asking me, ‘Am I willing to live with that versus living with a nuclear Iran?’ my answer is still the same: ‘We cannot live with a nuclear Iran.’ I am willing to absorb what takes place at the expense of the security of the U.A.E.”In Diplospeak, that's "you have our blessing to blast them back to the stone age..." A nuclear armed Iran would utterly upset the balance of power in the Middle East and make a nuclear arms race inevitiable. Nations such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, as well as Iraq, Turkey and Kuwait would be forced to begin developement of nuclear bombs in order to guarantee their survival.
The existense of Israel's stockpile has kept the status quo in the region as they would only be likely to use their weapons if they were facing annihilation...which would be much more likely now, with a overly aggressive Iran...who just happens to back Hezbollah and Hamas, both of which regularly lob rockets into Isreal.
What would happen if a "small war" was triggered with Hezbollah in northern Israel/Southern Lebanon...that could rapidly spiral out of control, especially if Israel looks to destroy the Iranian proxy...Ahmadinejad has regularly threatened to nuke Isreali cities if Iran obtains such weapons, the 400 bomb arsenal of Israel would then be used on every medium sized city and military target in the region to forstall any possible ground war...
No comments:
Post a Comment